Am Sonntag, 23. Oktober 2011, 13:55:33 schrieb Johannes Schauer:
> I then investigated further. I created a first partition of 7 cylinders
> (the smallest size that was still working), formatted it with mkdosfs,
> copied all the files over and then created a new partition table with
> the first partition only having 1 cylinder. According to a binary diff,
> this change only affected a couple of bytes in the partition table (as
> expected) but again booting didnt work again. So since this time I left
> the fat partition untouched and only changed the partition sizes, I
> suspect that X-Loader really fails because of the partition table
> properties and not because some troubles with fat.
>> Is there any way to fix the issue and have X-Loader cope with smaller
> partition sizes?
I think this should be fixable as the X-Loader source is available. It might be
even possible to implement ext2 support. The only restriction that I know of
is that it has to fit into the internal SD-RAM of the CPU.
> Sadly, due to this problem (if it can't be fixed easily) my main point
> (less space wasted) isnt of so much importance anymore.
>> But even if this can't (easily) be fixed, I still want to ask: what is
> your reasoning behind putting uImage on the first partition? I only see
> disadvantages of that and only (even if albeit small) advantages of
> doing otherwise.
I agree with your points will change my boot scripts too. Probably noone was
thinking about this issues and due to the X-Loader problems noone attempted to
fix it.
Best regards,
Christoph